Top Rated

Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage

Background

I haven’t ventured into any of the other the LDS blogs in a very long time. I usually just confine myself to this blog. However, on July 28th, 2009, while viewing the LDS Anarchy blog stats, I backtracked a referral link and found myself on the Mormon Heretic blog. Apparently OWIW had commented over there back in November and linked to one of his posts here.

Anyway, as it had been a really long time since I’d been at Mormon Heretic’s blog, I thought I would check out what was new. That’s when I saw he had two recent posts on polygamy. (See My perspective on polygamy—he also has the same post at Mormon Matters—and Bushman’s Perspective on Polygamy, Alger and Snow.) I was impressed by the number of comments that both posts contained. Granted, these comments were from just a handful of people, but still the fervor of the individuals indicated a great interest in the subject matter. I also found a link to The Faithful Dissident’s recent post on polygamy entitled, What Would You Do If Polygamy Came Back?, which also had a lot of comments (from many different people, this time).

I skimmed through the comments on all three posts (but didn’t read every word) and found the viewpoints interesting. I was struck by how much interest polygamy still garners among the people and how divisive a topic it still is, both the doctrine itself and how Joseph Smith practiced it. The Faithful Dissident’s post, in particular, seemed to confirm my assertion that most LDS would reject polygamy if it returned as an allowable practice among the membership.

A little while later, I came across another article, written by TruthSeekerToo entitled, Why I don’t believe in Polygamy. For the record, both TruthSeekerToo (obviously) and Mormon Heretic disbelieve that D&C 132 was a revelation inspired of God. And The Faithful Dissident and her commenters also seem to tend towards rejection of the revelation.

Contrary to what you may believe, anarchists are not very accepting. There is every shade of anarchist out there and they bicker and fight among themselves as to which flavor is the best or proper one. Just saying you are an anarchist is not good enough for most of them. They want to know what kind of an anarchist you are. Are you an anarcho-syndicalist? An anarcho-capitalist? A green anarchist? An anarcho-primitivist? Etc. If you aren’t the “proper” type of anarchist, they will reject your believe system and argue with you over why it is wrong.

Fortunately, there are also other anarchists who are tired of such designations and who simply call themselves “anarchists without adjectives.” These are just anarchists, period. They accept all forms of anarchism.

I align myself more with the “anarchists without adjectives” and am accepting of all forms of anarchism, however, I do put a designation on my particular type. It’s called tribal anarchism and so I’m a tribal anarchist. I follow this principle because it is both scriptural and according to the nature of man.

Tribal anarchism may be on the rise

During a recent search on YouTube, I found some videos on tribal anarchism. Some of these videos are promoting what they call “national anarchism,” but it is really just a modified form of tribal anarchism. I find the appearance of these videos fascinating, as people (other than myself) are starting to understand the tribal nature of humanity and that tribal anarchy, and not any other type of anarchy, is the fundamental kind. This makes me wonder if tribal anarchism is gaining traction among the anarchists of the world. At any rate, it is encouraging to find anarchists promoting scriptural, tribal anarchism.

Here are the links to the YouTube videos and also to a web site of national anarchists (tribal anarchists) that are located in San Francisco, California.

I’m listing these with a disclaimer: Although the principles of tribal anarchy are contained therein, you may also notice a racist element that I don’t condone. If you can learn to filter out the racism and focus on the principles of tribal anarchism, this information may be of use as a learning tool. If you can’t, then don’t click on any of the following links.

Pretty much everything. The tribal aspect of the gospel, as well as the tribal anarchy aspect, is currently in a state of suspended animation. Through our patriarchal blessings, we LDS are told that we are members of this or that tribe of Israel, but the tribal functions are not in place. We are tribes in word, but not in deed, action or function. The Lord attempted, with Joseph Smith’s D&C 132 revelation, to begin to activate the tribal functions. In order to explain this, we need to come to some understanding of what a tribe is.

What is a tribe?

From Wikipedia:

A tribe, is a social group of humans connected by a shared system of values and organized for mutual care, defense, and survival beyond that which could be attained by a lone individual or family. A ‘tribe’ is defined in anthropology. When viewed historically or developmentally, a tribe is a mutual care system which, unlike a kingdom or state or other schema, is oriented around kinship and shared beliefs. Tribes can well exist simultaneously with other schema (see Schema (psychology)) such as states or other systems. They might consist of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states. Tribes are the most enduring and successful social survival system that has ever existed on earth. Tribes can exist within or without a state or kingdom and may or may not depend on the state or kingdom to endure.

Many anthropologists use the term to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship, especially corporate descent groups (see clan and lineage).

Emphasis mine.

It is kinship that makes a tribe a tribe. Keep this in mind, as it is the key to understanding the revelation that is D&C 132 and Joseph Smith’s interesting polygamous marriages. Shared belief alone does not a tribe make. There must be shared belief and kinship.

The personal anguish caused by plural marriage did not stop Joseph Smith from marrying more women. He married three in 1841, eleven in 1842, and seventeen in 1843. Historians debate these numbers, but the total figure is most likely between twenty-eight and thirty-three. Larger numbers have been proposed based on the sealing records in the Nauvoo temple. Eight additional women were sealed to Joseph in the temple after his death, possibly implying a marriage while he was still alive. Whatever the exact number, the marriages are numerous enough to indicate an impersonal bond. Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship, but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities…. He did not lust for women so much as he lusted for kin.

The implication, again, is that the Lord’s revelation to Joseph was designed to make the Gentile converts, now called Ephraimites, an actual tribe, meaning that everyone in the tribe needed to be related to each other by blood, adoption or marriage.

Our denomination’s crisis with polygamy came in about 1970. We began baptizing in an Indian-subculture in which the tribesmen were already living in polygamous marriages. After struggling so hard for a century to disassociate ourselves from this particular LDS belief, what were we to do?

The revelation brought to the church and confirmed by the general conference established for us the principle that “monogamy is the basic principle on which Christian married life is built” and authorized the First Presidency and the Quorum of 12 (Apostles) in their field jurisdictions to interpret that principle as directed by the Spirit.

The implementation ultimately meant that newly baptized polygamous people were allowed to remain in those marriages for the rest of their lives, but were not allowed to take additional marital partners into the marriage. The latter act would be treated as adultery or fornication under church law (I forget which).

This ruling became a schismatic issue for a number of people.

Emphasis mine. Notice that the problem only came when the non-tribal RLDS church came in contact with an actual tribe. Keep this in mind. We’ll revisit this dilemma later on down the post.

Tribes and polygamy go hand in hand

Polygamy may be abhorrent to most Americans, but in the global community it is common, normal and accepted.

Although the percentage of men in the world who have more than one wife is relatively small, as many as a third of the world’s population belongs to a community that allows it, says Israeli anthropologist Joseph Ginat.

There are many plural marriages in Africa, the Middle East and in Asia, said Ginat, professor of social and culture anthropology at the University of Haifa.

Many American Indian tribes allow polygamy; several experimental Christian groups practice it. And, of course, there are those famous offshoots of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

…

American Indians: Polygamy was fairly widespread among American Indian tribes, said Patricia Albers, chairman of American Indian studies at the University of Minneapolis. There were plural marriages among the Dakota of Southern Minnesota, Ojibway of northern Wisconsin, Mesquakia of Iowa, and the Ho-chunk (formerly Winnebago). In the Intermountain West, plural marriage was common among the Shoshone and Paiute tribes; it was also practiced by the Utes and Navajos. “I don’t know any tribal nation in this general region that didn’t have it or disallowed it,” Albers said. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Blackfoot Indians of the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana were increasingly involved in buffalo-hide trade, and “families were more successful when they had more women engaged in processing of buffalo hides,” she said.

In many American Indian tribes, polygamy “was not a sign of subordinate position,” Albers said. “It occurred where women stood on fairly equal footing with the men in their communities.” Many tribes expected women to have responsibility, not only for her own children, but for those of her sisters as well. That could be one reason why the most common type of polygamy practiced by American Indians was sororal polygamy, or two sisters married to the same man. If a woman’s husband died, it was not uncommon for her to then marry her sister’s husband, Albers said. It was a way of “melding family units.”

If you take a look at the FLDS or other LDS offshoots that practice polygamy, who can say that these groups do not functions as tribes?

The only child left in state custody after being swept from a polygamist sect’s West Texas ranch was placed permanently with a relative on Thursday, ending one of the largest custody cases in U.S. history.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed an order giving permanent custody of the 15-year-old girl to a relative who is a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The girl is not allowed to communicate with jailed sect leader Warren Jeffs, whom she allegedly married when she was 12, but is otherwise allowed to stay with church members.

The girl was among 439 children taken from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in April 2008 after authorities responded to bogus calls to a domestic abuse hotline. Texas child welfare authorities removed all the children from the Eldorado ranch, and they were placed in foster care until the state Supreme Court ruled authorities had overreached.

The 15-year-old initially was returned to her mother, but she went back to foster care last August after her mother refused during a court hearing to guarantee the girl’s safety. The girl has been allowed to live with a relative for several months, but Thursday’s order made the arrangement permanent and resolved the last of the Child Protective Services’ cases involving FLDS members.

“It’s clearly a huge relief. We’re extremely happy to get all the children back,” said FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop. “It’s been a long road for her, but we made it.”

He said the girl has been much happier living with relatives, who understand the insular sect’s culture, pioneer-style dress and religious beliefs.

The last sentence could have been worded just as accurately, “He said the girl has been much happier living with [her tribe, which understands the tribal ways she is accustomed to].”

The polygamy of heaven

D&C 132 is not precisely the Biblical polygamy. There are aspects of it, but it adds the additional dimension of polyandry. This makes the polygamy practiced in Joseph’s day more egalitarian than that practiced by Brigham and others. In fact, it resembles the unity of the heavens, in which all have all things common. This makes sense, as it is Joseph’s mission in the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times to gather together all things in one, in Christ, both things in heaven and on Earth. (See Ephesians 1: 10 and D&C 27: 13.) So, going beyond the Bible is definitely a sign of the times we are living in.

Had Joseph succeeded in promoting D&C 132’s full doctrine among the people, the Gentile Ephraimites would have been converted into a bona fide tribe, but a tribe stronger and unlike any other tribe on Earth, as all would have been related to all through marriage sealings. It would have resembled the tribal family of the heavens. (See 379 Yah’shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), an article on the nccg.org web site, which talks about the heavenly family of God, His work of expanding it and the importance God places on family relations, or kin. Had the author used the word ‘tribe’ instead of family, he would have been closer to the truth, as the ‘family’ of God is infinite in number and complexity, resembling more a tribe than a nuclear family.)

Brigham Young’s polygamy was a diluted or limited form of what Joseph and his wives are said to have practiced. Brigham (and others) practiced polygyny, without the polyandrous aspects of the revelation. Although this did serve to create strong tribal relationships, it was not the heavenly ideal Joseph was striving to gather to the saints.

Modern LDS are not currently tribal, but soon will be

It is true that we call the people at church brother and sister so-and-so, and even though they may be of the same tribe as we (usually of Ephraim), we still view them differently than our real kin. They are members of our tribe in name only. They are our brothers and sisters in name only. Our real brothers and sisters, those of blood, take precedence over our church brother and sisters. We distinguish between our blood family and our church family. This is natural and normal in society and true for just about everyone.

Be that as it may, we must always remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to be lived by genuine tribes (composed of kin) and not just tribes in name only. (See The tribal nature of the gospel.) This means that there will be a tribal movement among the saints at some time in the future, which will activate the tribal functions. This also means that D&C 132, which is a tribal key, will likely at some point be lived again in its fulness.

Twelve tribes, not one tribe, under Christ

There’s one more point that I wish to address with this post. (This really is what4anarchy’s job as he is the resident tribist among the blog contributors, but I’ll do it for him anyway.) And that point is the tendency of Ephraimites to believe that their tribe is the main tribe of the restoration, meaning the leadership tribe, or tribe in which all or most of the church leadership will come from, in the time preceding the Second Coming. Also, the tendency of Ephraimites to believe that it matters not which tribe you belong to, that the important thing is that you are of the house of Israel. (This is said to non-Ephraimites to placate them into not minding that the Ephraimites lead the church.)

The truth of the matter is, though, that all of the tribes will have vitally important roles in the restoration and gathering and there will be an equal division of the leadership, each tribe directing itself under Christ. Once this tribal aspect of the gospel is understood, then the revelations given in this dispensation can be looked through tribal filters and be shown as being directed principally to the tribe of Ephraim. There are still more revelations that must come that will be for Ephraim, through the Ephraimitish prophets, but there also will be plenty of revelations that must come to the other tribes, through their own prophets.

Remember, the gospel is divided into twelve tribes, not one single tribe. Therefore, each tribe must have its own set of prophets, its own set of scriptures, its own leaders. (See, for example, 2 Nephi 29: 13.) Were this not so, there would be no point in having twelve tribes. One single tribe would suffice. And there would be no point in saying that the people of God even belong to a ‘tribe” if they were never to function as a tribe (composed of actual kin), but as just a group of unrelated people who believe in Christ (a church).

Polygamy ties into this because it is polygamy that activates the tribal functions of all the tribes. Also, as we know that other tribes are coming, and by this I mean literal tribes, composed of people related to each other, it is possible that these other tribes are living polygamy already. If the Gentile, Ephraimitish church is rejecting polygamy and the other eleven tribes show up and they are living polygamy, this creates quite a problem, as the Gentile church will end up spurning the literal seed of Abraham. Thus, D&C 132 prepares and allows the Gentile converts to act as the literal seed of Ephraim in all its tribal functions and to become assimilated among the other eleven tribes.

Conclusion

Tribalism is the nature of the gospel. The sooner we realize this, the easier it will be to enact the plan of salvation and fulfill the revelations of God that have already come forth and that will come forth, including that revelation contained in D&C 132. By getting a tribal view of the gospel, certain mysteries, such as polygamy, can make a little more sense.

The American Gentiles have a saying, when referring to what is really important in politics, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It might be appropriate for LDS to adopt a similar one, “It’s the tribe, unlearned one!”

(After all, we really shouldn’t be calling people stupid, now should we?) ;)

You seem to view tribalism as a good thing. I disagree. If we look at the tribes in Afghanistan, are they models of society? Native American Tribes? Tribes in India and Africa? Is this what America should model itself after? Do you view their primitive lifestyle as more Godly than the society we have in America?

I believe the 12 tribes are a terrible example. They tried to kill their brother Joseph; one brother slept with his sister who he thought was a prostitute (really, he must have been really drunk not to notice, don’t you think?) They slaughtered a group of people who had just been circumcised. The Bible is full of their idolatrous practices. Are you telling me tribalism is what God wants?

If polygamy is tied to the 12 Tribes, I find that even more troubling. I don’t view these as sterling examples of righteousness.

I’ve read your blog a few times, but I admit that I just don’t understand anarchy at all. Perhaps my comments are complete ignorance or your position; if so, please educate me.

Sure, there would be “social etiquette” between tribes but no all powerful government that can force you to conform to what they believe is important.

I believe that no national government is better then an oppressive government.

With anarchy there are still contracts, bonds, obligations, families, and even conformity to a point. But no one playing to the emotions of the many to gain authority to oppress others.

As crazy as this sounds to most out there, I think it will only be a matter of time until most of you see the truth in this viewpoint.

I do not believe that God ever had any intention for us to live in a country as corrupt as the country that most of the readers of this blog live in now.

I am also a big fan of the truth behind celestial marriage. It is a much better method for a society to function in when done properly, especially for the women. But it is too late for me to take the time to explain why…

Mormon Heretic/Grasshopper/Padawan, I provided the links to the YouTube tribal anarchism videos to complete your education into the superiority of tribal anarchism over any other form of society. After listening to those five videos you should be able to comprehend just why Yahweh was incensed that the tribes of Israel desired Samuel to give them a king (a monarchy, a State) to be like the gentiles that surrounded them instead of remaining in the unmatched freedom of tribal anarchism which Yahweh in his great mercy and bounty had bestowed upon them. See The prophetic counsel against having kings (rulers) for the account of this. You may also wish to review all of the 30 or so articles I’ve written on this blog about anarchism. In particular, you should take note of post, The role of agency in political systems, as that explains anarchism in great detail. All of these posts can be found on the Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist, under the Anarchism/Anarchy section.

Now, to answer your questions: “If we look at the tribes in Afghanistan, are they models of society? Native American Tribes? Tribes in India and Africa? Is this what America should model itself after? Do you view their primitive lifestyle as more Godly than the society we have in America?”

The tribes of Israel are not supposed to be patterned after the tribes of the earth. The tribes of the earth make their own laws and often form States. Israel was always intended to accept the word of Yahweh as its tribal law and Yahweh as its Tribal Chief and to remain in tribal anarchy. That standard is the model of society. The further away from that standard you get, the less godly a society is, meaning that the less it matches the type of society enjoyed in the heavens.

And for your final question, “Are you telling me tribalism is what God wants?”

Yes, I’m telling you exactly that. The gospel was always intended to be lived within a society of untrammeled free agency, which equates to tribal anarchy. This is why tribalism is so important and the need for twelve functioning tribes of Israel. Had the original saints in the time of Joseph created a functioning tribe of Ephraim, they would have been an unbreakable society and they could have taken the gospel to the ends of the earth with no impediments because the tribes of the earth could have easily been assimilated into the functioning tribe of Ephraim. As it is now, though, we cannot baptize everyone who desires baptism.

Kings are bad according to the BoM. So why did Joseph Smith have himself ordained a king? It doesn’t appear that he was trying to set up a tribe. Running for president seems to run counter to tribalism as well.

We also learn in the BoM that after Christ came and the people lived in peace there were no longer any “ites.” To me that means that when people are living as Christ would have them live there are no barriers, no tribes. All are One.
When we are compared to the children of Isreal, I’m not so sure that is a compliment.

While I find your article a new spin to the polygamy debate it is not very compelling.

For me, as you saw from my blog, the elephant in the room is all the scriptures that condemn polygamy and/or command monogomy. We could add to that all the scriptures that say to uphold the law of the land and there being no need to break the law if you are living God’s law.

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

I have not come across any polygamy supporter who could explain to me why God Omnipotent would give D&C 58:21 AND polygamy which was against the law of the land. It is a contradiction that makes someone a liar. God cannot lie so we are left with one alternative.

Do tribalists believe in the binding power of Common Consent? If they do, polygamy was against the laws accepted by the Saints by CC. They had adopted and cannonized the Article on Marriage which upheld monogomy and refuted polygamy and fornication. So until, by CC, they changed that law all polygamist were breaking the law of the land AND of the LDS church. The Article on Marriage was simply replaced without a vote and not until 1876.

You have got to be kidding me=) you feel your best argument against polygamy is D&C 58:21?

D&C 98:6 answers your rather simple objection. To the Lord the “laws of the land” mean the “constitutional” laws of the land. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, feel that the Lord wants us to truly obey just any laws that society creates? What about in Germany and the law that you had to notify the government when you knew of a Jewish family that was hiding? Would you argue in favor of that since it is a law of the land? How about the “extermination order” would you argue in favor of it because it was a “law of the land”.

Regarding Joseph Smith ordaining himself a King… becoming Kings and Priests is a main goal for all of us here on the earth. God is our ultimate King. This is not a valid argument for kings on the earth though, at least not kings that force others to follow them.

Don’t you recall that the reason Samuel was so upset regarding the desire for a king that the Israelites had was because he knew that the Lord wanted to create a kingdom of “Kings and Priests” and that with one supreme earthly king ruling over them that would be very difficult. So obviously there was no problem with Kings and Priests per-se, just a problem with a King exercising unrighteous dominion on others.

If you are going to make an argument regarding this I recommend that you find example of Joseph exercising unrighteous dominion, that is the sin, not being a “King”, that is what God wants. Of course if you do find a valid example of JS exercising unrighteous dominion I will just shrug my shoulders and say that “he wasn’t perfect”=).

“Do tribalists believe in the binding power of Common Consent?”

I assume they do when two elements are present:

1. The law is just
2. They had a part in deciding the law

you see, that is the problem with common consent, or even the problem with strait democracy. 10 people, if voting together can vote to enslave 9 others because, hey, the voice of the people have spoken.=) Two guys could get together and vote for the right to abuse a third woman because after all, rights be damned, she is just one vote. I am really sick of our societies deification of “common consent” or “democracy” because although I admit it does produce better results then many other ways, it is FAR from what God wants us to live.

Concerning all your scriptures that command monogamy…

To bad for Abraham no one told him about them=). Our repulsion to polygamy is a CULTURAL response. If you grew up in a culture that practiced it then monogamy would seem strange to you. There is NO sin in adults entering into covenants with each other. If two women want to covenant with one man then GOD DOES NOT CARE! All he cares about is if we break those covenants.

I am shocked at how difficult this is for so many people to grasp. I am not even getting into the arguments that God has commanded polygamy, I will leave those arguments to others. All I know for sure is that HE DOES NOT CARE because he is above the stupid little bickering of culture. He knows what is right and what is wrong and freely covenanting adults are not sinning.

Even regarding more than one husband for a woman, I think God might shake his head and say “Boy you have got it wrong” but I do not feel that even a woman with multiple husbands is “sinning” as long as she keeps her covenants with each husband. She just is not living the way that is best for her.

There are SOOOOO many practical reasons for polygamy, so many reasons that actually are in favor of women, but I will leave those arguments for another day.

My biggest concern, and the point that I want to scream out loud=) is that GOD DOES NOT LOOK ON POLYGAMY AS A SIN only we with our stupid little cultural blinders do.

Of course some people might be sinning while living the law if they are doing it just to consume it on their lusts, or if they do not keep covenant, or if they do not take good care of their wives and husbands… Yes, their are many ways to sin while practicing polygamy, but that is likewise true of monogamy, my point is that the lifestyle, when practiced properly, is not a sinful lifestyle, no matter whether it is “against the law” or not. It is just different from what we are used to.

Why do so many people care what other consenting adults do with their own lives?

I totally agree with your idea of tribalism. The scriptures speak of the twelve tribes of Isreal over and over. We have patriarchial blessings for the sole purpose of giving us our lineage, or what tribe we belong. I understand that our tribal roles are not fully realized as well.

However, let us assume that out of the 11 million church members, half are Ephraimites. That would make 5 million of us. Adding polygamy to this group of 5 million isn’t going to make us connected more. Heck, that is 5 million people. Naturally there would already be connections as you find in the church. But there is no way number wise that I can see polygamy getting us that bloodline connected. We have Ephraimites all over the world, so even if we all started living the principle right now, we wouldn’t get all connected.

In tribal anarchy I’ll agree with you. The polygamy aspect we disagree.

All I need to know is that the same blood of Ephraim runs through both of our veins to feel a great bond with others. And we should think of it that way, our actual blood is connected already. Put all the Ephraimites together after a huge disaster, with family members missing or dead, and being connected as such would show you a tribe.

Wasn’t W.W. Phelps, who presented the article on Marriage at the August 1835 General Assembly in Kirtland for inclusion in a book of doctrine and covenants, later excommunicated for irregularly marrying 3 Missouri women while on a mission in the late 1840s?

Following Joseph Smith’s death, supposedly Emma Smith denied that she or Joseph had ever practiced plural marriage. I wonder how much the early Church was practicing “lying for the Lord”, attempting to keep certain practices secret to outsiders in an effort to delay mob actions, persecutions, and destruction. There are examples in scripture where people are told to do one thing but to say another or where they are instructed as to what version of the truth they should give.

As I understand it, Emma took the Nauvoo endowment, in which she would have sworn by her head to keep certain oaths, covenants, and knowledge secret. I think Emma saw that certain loved ones were killed as they revealed certain secrets to the world. Did Emma continue to deny plural marriage in an attempt to honor her oaths of secrecy, fearing that she would be destroyed the same as she witnessed so many others be destroyed?

Personally, I think the Lord puts bits in our mouths and hooks in our jaws, and he turns us backward and leads us astray for his own purposes. Given this influence, it is quite difficult to analyze the early Church’s failures with respect to plural marriage.

I know from my own experience as the product of a broken home that serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage) is the most corrupted and perverse form of polygamy, a form of polygamy that is for some reason perfectly acceptable to our society. Our Church sanctions polygamy today by divorcing and remarrying individuals, for divorce and remarriage certainly results in “many marriages”.

But don’t take my word for it, I only have 3 fathers and 3 mothers, each of whom I love dearly… Having an eternal view of my family’s marriages has been helpful in healing the creve coeur.

Stupidity is like ignorance. It has more to do with being denied additional points of reference. Given very few points of reference, any idiot can be scared by polygamy!

I know from my own experience as the product of a broken home that serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage) is the most corrupted and perverse form of polygamy, a form of polygamy that is for some reason perfectly acceptable to our society. Our Church sanctions polygamy today by divorcing and remarrying individuals, for divorce and remarriage certainly results in “many marriages”.

Amen, brother! what4anarchy and I both have very strong feelings on this topic and no one seems to understand it. He is currently working on producing some multimedia on divorce, directed to the LDS, and I, in the past, have written some detailed articles (never published) on separation. Perhaps I will dig them out and post them on this blog. If you want to expound on serial monogamy, Derek, let me know and I’ll give you access as a guest contributor. I think this is a topic that the saints need to more fully comprehend.

I just want to thank you for posting this blog. Perhaps I am one of the few women out there who totally accepts and wants to live plural marriage. Granted, I was once indoctrinated by the LDS church to shun it. But those times are long past. And someday, maybe sooner than later, my husband and I will take another wife…and then another. There is no other way here on earth to live as closely to God’s pattern of family. What better way to grow closer to Him than by living a law He commands, in the way He wants it? We have a greater opportunity to refine ourselves by living plural marriage. We cannot be selfish, prideful, jealous or a number of other great sins and live happily in polygamy! The very covenant, when made with eye single to the glory of God begets joy!
Thanks again!

Todd, you obviously missed my point and did not read my article which states all my other reasons-I see no purpose in reposting my article in the comment section here.

There is a BIG difference between allowing polygamy and REQUIRING it for exaltaion and salvation.

I believe you are right that God does not care if someone is a polygamist and keeps their vows. I’ll bet he is even more wide open than that, he happens to be very forgiving.
However, to say that God requires it for the CK is not supported by scripture.

The Article on Marriage was UNANIMOUSLY voted in by the LDS congregation. So I am having a hard time seeing the validity of your slavery argument. Joseph allowed it to be cannonized! He received several other revelations which also command monogomy. Nothing conflicts until D&C 132 rolls around and isn’t public until 1852.

Remember that D&C revelation was given to Americans. America was supposed to be prepared for the Restoration. So God is not going to say something that he doesn’t mean. The apologist answer of saying words don’t really mean what they mean doesn’t really work for me. Joseph never fought the anti-bigamy laws.

And yes, I consider it unrighteous dominion to promise a 14 year old GIRL that her family will be saved in Celestial glory if she becomes his wife. I know that doesn’t bother you, but having sex with a minor is a crime.

Do you believe that none of the commandments to be monogomist count? Was God lying when he said to only have one wife? Teasing us? Just because Abraham was not perfect does not mean the command to be monogomist is invalid. He was just as imperfect as Joseph and every other prophet who has ever lived. Abraham sent Hagar and his son into the wilderness-is that worthy of emulation, too?

If we are doing such a crappy job of monogomy how is polygamy going to make us better? That is kinda funny. Utah will go back to having the highest divorce rate of the nation.

I do find it important how Christ defines doctrine:
*Repent *Believe in Him *Baptism *Become as a Child
3 Nephi 11:40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

LDSAnarchist, you too my question out of context. If we look at Israel’s 12 tribes, they are a terrible example, and I can’t imagine God wants us to emulate them. Can you please offer a rebuttal telling me why I should emulate the following behavior, which I listed above:

“I believe the 12 tribes are a terrible example. They tried to kill their brother Joseph; one brother slept with his sister who he thought was a prostitute (really, he must have been really drunk not to notice, don’t you think?) They slaughtered a group of people who had just been circumcised. The Bible is full of their idolatrous practices.”

Perhaps I should ask this question instead: Are you telling me God wants us to emulate the 12 tribes of Israel, and the things I just listed?

—-

I didn’t read your 30 articles on anarchism. Frankly, I’m not that interested–I was hoping for a Reader’s Digest or Anarchy for Dummies version.

As for Somalia, I don’t view pirates raiding ships because they can’t make a living any other way as worthy of emulation. If that’s your best example of Anarchy, count me out. Are you going to start pirating too since it is such a superior form of government? It seems to me that the Somalis are turning to piracy because the anarchy isn’t helping them survive. Isn’t piracy breaking the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal”?

Somalia is a complete an utter failure, and I don’t think God wants us to emulate that.

I also don’t understand if we’re going to be kings and priests, how anarchy helps us in that ultimate goal.

“Having sex with a minor is crime”?… to who, God, or you? I will admit that the thought of “very early” sex curdles my blood, but 14 seems just fine to me if ordained by God. God knows what is right and what is wrong. 14 years olds can very well be adults when necessary.

“The Article on Marriage was UNANIMOUSLY voted in by the LDS congregation. So I am having a hard time seeing the validity of your slavery argument. Joseph allowed it to be cannonized!”

Whoop de friggin doo. UNANIMOUSLY voting on something that takes away the rights of others still seems unjust to me. Sure, you can specify that this is how you want to live, but don’t enforce your beliefs on other free children of God. I don’t care if it was voted on, I don’t agree with it and it holds not bearing on me. I don’t believe God agrees with it and it held no bearing with him.

God will give the people what they want and what they deserve (mandatory monogamy in this case, a king in the case of Saul and Samuel). This does not mean that everyone is forced to live in accordance to these things. I am certain that if a man or woman living in Israel in the days of Saul wanted to access God themselves and were worthy God would allow it. The same is true of polygamy. If there are worthy individuals that want to live this law, God will allow it. Of course don’t get the impression that I think that everyone living a polygamous lifestyle is showing they are more worthy of those not. There are many problems in current polygamous relationships including abuse and unrighteous dominion (I find it necessary to remind the attackers of polygamy that these things are not absent from monogamous relationships)

“There is a BIG difference between allowing polygamy and REQUIRING it for exaltation and salvation.”

Yes, but ALL I discussed was allowing it, so that is what you should have responded to. I never mentioned it being a requirement for salvation once.

“And yes, I consider it unrighteous dominion to promise a 14 year old GIRL that her family will be saved in Celestial glory if she becomes his wife”.

Have you every thought that this is wrong ONLY if what he said was untrue? If what he said was true then it was a wonderful blessing to both her and her family. The OT is full of symbolism of a righteous man or king delivering his entire family/people. These types of claims are not as far fetched as our CULTURE has made them out to be. I don’t think you would have thought of that because it is my (probably poor) opinion that you have a hard time distancing yourself from your culture. Traditions of our fathers can be a real B***H.

“Do you believe that none of the commandments to be monogamist count? Was God lying when he said to only have one wife? Teasing us?”

I believe that those commandments were valid for some. If everyone suddenly started practicing polygamy I think we would not be much better off then we are now.

“If we are doing such a crappy job of monogamy how is polygamy going to make us better?”

I will not ever waste my time mentioning all the many ways unless I have a person that is actually interested in learning.

“I do find it important how Christ defines doctrine:
*Repent *Believe in Him *Baptism *Become as a Child

Polygamy is absent from His list.”

So are:

1. Following the laws of the land
2. Caring for the poor and the needy
3. Receiving the Holy Ghost
4. Gaining a testimony of the gospel
5. Loving God
6. Loving your neighbor
7. Not worshiping idols
8. Having no graven images
9. Honoring your parents
10. Not having any other Gods before Jehovah
11. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
12. Keep the Sabbath day holy
13. Don’t Murder
14. Don’t steal
15. Don’t covet your neighbors wife
16. Don’t covet your neighbors property
17. Don’t bear false witness
18. Care for the widows and fatherless
19. Do unto others what ye would have them do unto you
20. Pray for your enemies
21. Remember those who are mistreated
22. Don’t pass judgment on one another (I admit I fail… but actively trying)
23. Don’t love money
24. Consecrate to the Lord.
25. Do not seek revenge.

This is just a small list of all the things the bible tells us to do. Do you think that Jesus does not care if we do these things or… do you think that just maybe Christ’s doctrine includes these things in one way or another? My point clearly is that there are many things that we are commanded to do that are not on your little list, but they are included in the list as a par of repenting, believing in him, and becoming as a child. These things are much more inclusive then I think you give them credit for and they included much more then what they say. If they didn’t we would have very little need for any other scripture. What makes you think that polygamy is not included in repenting, believing in him, and becoming as a child.

If you are what you say you are, a truth seeker, then read this http://www.quransearch.com/ntpoly.htm in response to your blog post. It is well written and makes a clear point that I feel the truly penitent will have to admit that things are not nearly as clear as they want them to be,

Todd, malice and name calling are unbecoming. And I think you meant “roll” not “role.” =)

You claim that you are not arguing that polygamy is required for exaltation or salvation and yet your arguments indicate otherwise. Don’t defend that it is “doctrine” if you don’t believe it is. D&C 132 claims it is doctrine and required for exaltation. You either believe that is true, or you don’t.

As for all those other listed items. They are clearly not doctrine. Although the Holy Ghost is part of baptism by fire. None of those things are required for salvation. We cannot earn or work our way to salvation. That is why the doctrine is so simple.
I am betting you think that killing, lying, seeking revenge , breaking the law and judging are okay in some instances. I guess you also think coveting your neighbors wife is a-okay too since that is what Joseph did on several occasions. It’s ironic that you put so many things on that list of “doctrine” that you clearly don’t believe are required for salvation.

So, do you believe that the 14 year old GIRL secured salvation and exaltation for her whole family by “marrying” Joseph? If yes, you believe that it is required for such and need to stop saying that that isn’t your argument. If no, you believe that he was lying and using unrighteous dominion.

I am very glad YOU don’t get to decide how young is old enough to have sex with an adult in this country. I am so sorry you feel the need to justify statutory rape. FYI, I didn’t make up the law.

I’m not even sure what to say about your tirade against common consent. God doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.
D&C 26:2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
D&C 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

It appears that this injustice was how God wanted his church run. It appears that the prophet Joseph agreed. It also appears that the prophet Joseph agreed with the Article on Marriage. I’m sorry he didn’t ask your opinion on the matter.
You don’t seem to grasp what unanimous means.

LDSA do you also hold this low view of common consent? Do tribes set their own rules and laws or just let everyone do whatever the hell they want?

“You claim that you are not arguing that polygamy is required for exaltation or salvation and yet your arguments indicate otherwise. Don’t defend that it is “doctrine” if you don’t believe it is. D&C 132 claims it is doctrine and required for exaltation. You either believe that is true, or you don’t.”

Of you can not have made up your mind yet, but simply believe that it is not a sin. That must be the libertarian in me. I might not have decided if I want to do something or not but I don’t think I have the right to tell others not to just because I might not like it.

“As for all those other listed items. They are clearly not doctrine. Although the Holy Ghost is part of baptism by fire. None of those things are required for salvation. We cannot earn or work our way to salvation. That is why the doctrine is so simple.”

You missed my entire point, unless you can honestly say that you believe that a person can gain exaltation without loving God and loving their neighbor. I believe that you have to love God and love your neighbor (again, working on it) to be saved because on those things hang all the law and the prophets. That would mean that they are a part of your “doctrine”, just not specifically mentioned.

You remind me of someone I know. They enjoy looking through the scriptures and finding small, word links, and basing HUGE doctrinal ideas off of them, absent any real base, and in the meantime make the gospel much more complex then it needs to be. Then they will have moments where they will read a verse like you quoted and interpreted it as meaning so much less then the Lord intends it to mean. To much here, way to little there. To be honest I could be describing myself as well. I know that I surely get tons of things wrong.

“I am betting you think that killing, lying, seeking revenge , breaking the law and judging are okay in some instances”

Absolutely. Killing if it is me or them. Lying if the Lord tells me to for a greater purpose, seeking revenge… not unless God tells me to, which is VERY unlikely in my opinion. Breaking the law? YES, I only wish I had the nerve to break unjust laws more often, you know, like the founding fathers. Judging… you have got to be kidding me if you think that we are not supposed to judge at all. What is a testimony but a person that has “judged” the fruits of the gospel and found them worthy. Come to think of if, my wife probably should have been more “judge-mental” before she choose to marry me=) Judging is not a sin, judging yourself in a prideful manner above others is the sin.

“So, do you believe that the 14 year old GIRL secured salvation and exaltation for her whole family by “marrying” Joseph?”

Again, I have yet to make up my mind, but I am not “judgmental” enough to assume one way or another without adequate proof. You obviously seem to have no problem “judging” Joseph… do you think that is wrong? I thought you didn’t agree with judging?

“I am very glad YOU don’t get to decide how young is old enough to have sex with an adult in this country. I am so sorry you feel the need to justify statutory rape. FYI, I didn’t make up the law.”

Me too! That would be way to much responsibility for a goofball like me. I am just willing to leave it up to God. I personally wouldn’t put any more trust in our corrupt legislators then I would in myself. I don’t see why you do, again, unless you have “judged” them as being right=).

“I’m not even sure what to say about your tirade against common consent. God doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.”

I think common consent is great. It is nice if we can agree on things but I sure as hell would not force you to live it afterwords if you come to a greater knowledge and understanding, especially if it is infringing on your freedom, but no one else’s.

“You don’t seem to grasp what unanimous means.”

Wouldn’t be the first time I did not understand something=). What unanimous means to me is that at a point in time people are all in agreement. What it does not mean to me is that it is required for that agreement to last for eternity without any related party changing their opinion.

Do you really think a woman should marry her rapist??? I think I’m going to throw up!

There is no question polygamy happened in the bible. I never said it didn’t. I’m really having a hard time figuring out your point. The Old Testament stories are proof that God allows evil and corruption. The people of the OT never did see the face of God (as a people). Why would we emulate people who failed to become One?

The link you provided failed in disproving any of my points. I didn’t even see any Book of Mormon or D&C stuff on it. It didn’t talk about polygamy as a requirment for the Celestial Kingdom at all.

The author of that site is seriously overlooking the fact that Jesus did NOT uphold the OT laws. His arguments are not compelling and totally devoid of the Spirit.

I admit that the old laws of Moses are pretty strange compared to what our culture has taught us today, and I have a hard time stomaching some of them as well=)

The bottom line is that the law of Moses came from God, it might be a lesser law, but it did come from God. Therefore, the things that are contained in it are not sins to God, just different to us because we are creations of culture, or of our zeitgeist (extra points for using a big foreign word=))

“The link you provided failed in disproving any of my points. I didn’t even see any Book of Mormon or D&C stuff on it. It didn’t talk about polygamy as a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom at all.”

Do you believe me now when I say that I am not trying to prove to you that it is a heavenly requirement? The only pro polygamy argument that I have brought up in our exchange is that it is not inherently wrong in the eyes of God. That there is nothing wrong with adults choosing to live that way. It is not a sin inherently. Even Mormons that chose to leave the church to live that “law” are not sinning, they are just acting different then the majority of people that share their culture.

You know, I would hardly expect a site called “QURANsearch.com” to have information on the D&C and BoM=). The point of the site is to show that there are many circumstances in the Bible where polygamy is accepted as a common way of life by God and the people.

Do you see my point now? I am not saying that polygamy is required for salvation (I am not saying that it is not either) I am simply arguing on the grounds that it is not wrong in the eyes of God if people want to live that way. Do you disagree with me?

If you do not disagree with me then good, we have come to an “unanimous” decision (of course this does not mean that we must stay there for eternity, you or I can both change our minds in the future if we like=). If you disagree, and you believe that God has the same cultural influences that the majority of the United States has, and does not accept polygamy as a valid form of marriage then how do you dispute the numerous examples of God accepting men that lived it?

You are right, the people of Israel as a whole did not see God, but Abraham did, and he, my friend, was a polygamist. God must not have thought it was a sin.

I’m sorry that you believe God wanted women to marry their rapist. He did not.

Not sure how I made the gospel more complicated? I think I distilled it down pretty simply using the scriptures as my guide. And, yes, we all pick and choose the scriptures we follow. They are made that way for a wise purpose. =)
I was simply pointing out that repentance is the only requirement for all people for salvation since all else will differ from person to person. I agree Love is the command Christ gave us.

Since you agree with me, I’m not sure why you attacked my post in the first place except that you seem very touchy about “law.” Since you won’t pin down your beliefs, I guess there is nothing else to discuss. =)

MH, did you actually go into the mises.org link that I gave you and read the article that I suggested you read in order to give you an understanding of why Somalia is a good example of tribalism? Your mention of Somali pirates seems to indicate that you have not.

Also, the question about the wicked practices of the 12 tribes is irrelevant to the issue at hand. First, who said anything about emulating wickedness? Second, your examples of wickedness were committed by brothers in a family, not by 12 tribes. Third, wickedness and righteousness can occur whether you live in a tribe or whether you live in a State. The Lord does not magically take away your ability to do wickedness once you live in a tribe. The fact of the matter, though, is that tribal anarchism affords the greatest amount of free agency while at the same time giving maximum constraint to evil behavior (defined as trampling on other people’s rights.) At the other end of the spectrum, the State limits the free agency of people to greater or lesser degrees while making some evil behavior legal (that which is done or approved by the State) and other evil behavior illegal and punishable by the State. Ultimately, the amount of State-sanctioned evil far outweighs the amount of evil that may occur in tribal anarchy in the balance of iniquity. Had you read my post, Anarchy does not require perfect people (one of those 30+ posts I suggested that you read), you would have understood this principle.

TruthSeekerToo keeps bringing up the Article on Marriage, which was apparently written by Oliver Cowdery or he at very least was one of the principle authors of it. An Ixquick search on “Oliver Cowdery, Article on Marriage” brings up some interesting articles such as:

Personally, I find it intriguing that Oliver, seemingly so against polygamy to have written this Article on Marriage, made his way back to the polygamous church and was re-baptized. It is also interesting that, according to Michael D. Quinn, polygamy was publicly acknowledged in 1852, but four editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were published in England before the article was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876.

“My point was to show you that polygamy is not black and white as you seemed to make it out to be with you quote of D&C 58. Everything past that was just fun=)”

LOL. I think you took my comment more b/w then it really was. It all goes back to the important word *required.* My whole point was that polygamy can’t be *required* if D&C 58 is true. I made no mention of sin. =)

Here’s a question for you TruthSeekerToo. If the body of the church accepted the Article on Marriage when it was first included in the Doctrine and Covenants and then later, in 1852, when polygamy was acknowledged publicly and was taught publicly, as opposed to privately, and, I suppose, the teaching was made public on the basis that they had a revelation, received by Joseph Smith years before, in which this doctrine was introduced, then why didn’t the body of the church rise up and reject this teaching, as it obviously conflicted with the published Article on Marriage?

Isn’t the answer to this question obvious? Didn’t the body of the church, in 1852, consent to support the doctrine of plural marriage publicly by their non-rejection of it? Did they not canonize it before it was actually published in their Standard Works?

Prior to the Christians, who compiled a “Bible,” the scriptures were individual scrolls that the people of God considered sacred writings. It is a relatively new practice to have all the scriptures bound together as one book. That doesn’t mean, though, that the saints have no right to authorize writings that are not bound together with their other books of scripture as part of their canon. It is the body of the saints that determines the scriptural canon. They can add to their canon, or reduce it, at their will and pleasure. A revelation from the Lord is still a revelation from the Lord, but they are free to accept or reject it as binding upon them when they will.

You still haven’t clearly answered the question. Your question to me seems to be saying that they were bound by both. That is just fine.
Anything else I say on this matter would open up an entirely new topic.

Seperate question:

Do you believe that polygamy is *required* for exaltation? Is it required for any part of the celestial kingdom? If you believe it is, then you are rejecting many other scriptures that teach otherwise (I am speaking only of scripture and not the AoM). If you don’t believe it is, you are rejecting parts of D&C 132. I would just like to know your “doctrinal” stand on this issue.
Do you believe those that reject polygamy will be destroyed and is that literal or spiritual?

TruthSeekerToo, in the post above, you’ll notice, under the heading “The polygamy of heaven” that the words “all have all things in common” is hyperlinked. Click that link and then type in the following password:

Deep Waters

and click the Submit button. Then read that entire article and you’ll understand my belief of whether polygamy is required for exaltation.

“You still haven’t clearly answered the question. Your question to me seems to be saying that they were bound by both. That is just fine.
Anything else I say on this matter would open up an entirely new topic.”

I am trying to avoid using descriptive terms like “bound” either way. My only argument to my anti polygamy friends is simply that there is nothing inherently wrong with it in the Lords eyes. That it is not a sin for someone to chose to live that way.

I do believe that there are many social and economic aspects to polygamy that have an overall net improvement on society at large. I have no problem arguing this as well.

Regarding being “required” for exaltation. I think the argument is lacking in the scriptures although i know that it was clearly taught by B. Young. I agree with the logic of his arguments, but am wary to enter in a debate where I have to use Brigham Young’s statements against scriptural statements. Due to the lack of clear, and concise scriptural backing regarding polygamy being “required” for salvation, I am uncomfortable arguing it (this does not mean I don’t believe it, just that I don’t feel comfortable debating it).

To summarize, I have no problem debating with anyone the following:

1. Polygamy alone, is not a sinful lifestyle in God’s eyes.
2. Polygamy maintains many advantages for society over monogamy.

I do not debate…

3. Whether polygamy is required for salvation.

I think the reason is because I can use logic to argue points 1 and 2. But point 3 can never be attained without first applying the logic of 1 and 2.

I ask you this… when lived properly how is polygamy that different from consecration of relationships?

There is really nothing to debate then. You used the term “doctrine” in your article. You also seemed to indicate that people who did not believe the polygamy doctrine outlined in D&C 132 were in error. This all lead me to believe that you were taking the position that polygamy was required for exaltation (salvation, CK, whatever). Are you retracting your position that polygamy is a “doctrine” the (new) new and everlasting covenant?

You don’t need D&C 132 to prove that polygamy is “allowed” by God. Clearly we have examples of people who are saved despite the fact they are polygamist. He is mighty to save, of that I am sure.

But, if you are going to put forth that D&C 132 came from God then you swollow the whole pill.
D&C 132:4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Either that is true or it is not true. I believe it is not true based on the 4 standard works and the arguments I’ve outlined on my blog.

If polygamy is not required for salvation or exaltation, why was it that we wanted to participate in it? That is where I get lost in your argument.

As for consecration of relationships, we could easily put same-sex marriage under that umbrella, too. Maybe you need to expound on what you mean by that.

Alright. I’ve read your post again. I hate clicking to a million different other articles, so I didn’t do that. But I’ve read this and reread your other post. I have made an honest effort to understand where you are coming from.

Now, let’s address just two of the problems.

Abraham made a mistake by taking the promise of “endless seed” too literally. He and his wife lacked faith in God’s promise and that led them to try to take matters into their own hands (enter Hagar, et al). Let’s see what the New Testament says is so great about Abraham:

We read in the New Testament more about Abraham and what was so great about him. There is no mention of polygamy. His faith is what is remembered. I highly recommend reading all of Galatians 3. It talks about faith versus the works of the law.

Galations 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of
the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Abraham’s faith and belief was his righteousness. It also becomes clear to me that Abraham and Sarah missed the mark when they took the promise of seed literally. All who are baptised become the seed of Abraham!

Again:
We also learn in the BoM that after Christ came and the people lived in peace there were no longer any “ites.” To me that means that when people are living as Christ would have them live there are no barriers, no tribes. All are One.

I’d also like to know if you are suggesting that Joseph Smith had plans for communal marriage where all husbands and wives were shared.

TruthSeekerToo, I appreciate the effort you are putting forth in trying to comprehend my understanding. I admit, I included lots of links that expand upon what I’ve written, and not everyone is disposed to click and read. But I do find it admirable that you are grappling with this issue.

Now, on to the two problems you bring up.

I find it odd that you start out by saying that Abraham “made a mistake by taking the promise of “endless seed” too literally” when we know that of Sarah, who was barren from age, was born Isaac. In other words, Yahweh miraculously started the process whereby the promise of endless seed could literally be fulfilled. Based upon what ended up happening, and the prophecies concerning the house of Israel, I’m not sure how you can justify calling a literal interpretation a mistake, especially since prophecies often have a dual fulfillment, spiritually and temporally.

Next I find it odd that you say that Abraham and Sarai lacked faith in God’s promise, when the text reads that it was Sarai who instigated the Hagar affair. The text in Genesis says Abraham “hearkened to the voice of Sarai” but that doesn’t mean that this didn’t occur after he consulted with Yahweh and was told to take Hagar as a wife. In fact, D&C 132 indicates that this is just what happened.

Again, I find it odd to read you saying that Abraham lacked faith and then you quote from a scripture that calls him a man of faith, even “faithful Abraham” who “believed God.” This is the same God that preached “the gospel unto Abraham.” The GOSPEL. Not the law of Moses, but the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, yes, the scripture you quoted does not mention polygamy. And why should it? It states plainly that Abraham believed God and was a man of faith who lived the gospel law. And yet we know that Abraham lived polygamy. Therefore, even in polygamy he lived according to faith. Could it be that polygamy is somehow part of the gospel law?

Now, I know your view is that Abraham acted without faith as pertains to polygamy. But this view contradicts the scripture you quoted. And so I find it odd that you even use that scripture.

I suspect that you don’t have a problem with D&C 132 or with Joseph Smith, per se. I suspect that you have a problem with the entire Bible. We have a list of 40 Biblical men that practiced polygamy, plus Yahweh (OT) referring to Himself as a polygamous husband and Jesus (NT) referring to himself as a polygamous husband. There is not one instance in the Old Testament or the New Testament that condemns polygamy, but all seem to provide allowances for it or even treat it as pertaining to righteousness. If polygamy went against the doctrine of Christ or against the word of Yahweh, don’t you think that the prophets would have told the people to stop the practice? And yet they didn’t. The only record we have of prophets of God telling people not to practice polygamy is from Jacob, and even he states that the word of the Lord was that “if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” In other words, the Lehites were to be monogamous unless the Lord re-authorized polygamy. But the law of monogamy practiced by the Lehites did not apply to the Jews on the other side of the planet, whose prophets communicated no such law to their people.

The first 5 books of the Bible were written by a polygamist: Moses. Abraham, the father of the faithful was a polygamist. Jacob (Israel), of whose house we are, was a polygamist. And there is evidence that there were polygamists among the New Testament church. It is only natural that Joseph would restore this ancient practice as part of his divine mission, only Joseph added the polyandrous part, which actually makes it more fair!

So, I would recommend that you gain a deeper understanding of biblical polygamy and not just write it off as some 4000 year old, generation-perpetuated mistake. That web site I linked to is an excellent resource.

To wrap this long comment up: No, all who are baptized do not become the seed of Abraham. There is more to it than that. Also, I feel that I addressed the “ites” thing in the post sufficiently. They still felt the need to keep their tribal genealogy. And as for Joseph’s future plans on plural marriage, we won’t know until he comes back and reveals the rest of the revelation, as the Lord promised that there was more to it.

Actually, I have lots of issues with the doctrinal conflicts of D&C 132. I’ve outlined many of them on my blog in another article. I know you feel that you have explained things so well and it all makes so much sense to you, but you haven’t convinced anyone. Your argument is not compelling. There are no dots to connect.

If you refuse to accept that all baptized people are seed of Abraham and heirs to the promise then you are choosing to reject those scriptures. You are free to do that.

The new and everlasting covenant is baptism in all scriptures pre132. 132 directly conflicts that by saying “celestial marriage” (ie polygamy) is the new and everlasting covenant.

God tells his people that if they obey his laws they will not need to break the law of the land.
D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

How do you feel about a 30 year old authority figure promising a 14 year old girl that her family will have eternal glory if she marries him (ie has sex with him)?

God also commanded men not to covet their neighbor’s wives. Repeatedly. Joseph Smith marrying women who were ladready married is in direct conflict to that AND D&C 132.

The over-riding commandment we are commanded to obey is LOVE. How does one love his neighbor while coveting (and taking) his wife away?

You’re not convincing anyone either. Your allegations are old and tired; you don’t need to repeat them here three or four times; and you don’t need to convince LDS Anarchist of anything to vindicate your position or your sense of self.

snip “plus Yahweh (OT) referring to Himself as a polygamous husband and Jesus (NT) referring to himself as a polygamous husband. There is not one instance in the Old Testament or the New Testament that condemns polygamy, but all seem to provide allowances for it or even treat it as pertaining to righteousness.”

Jesus also told his diciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. That would literally be canabalism. As a matter of fact, early Christians were accused of just that.
Do you also believe in a literal eucharist? Or just that canabalism can be part of Christ’s doctrine? Polygamy is condemned in LDS scripture. Is canabalism condemned? I really don’t know.

LDSA, I am truly not trying to “contend” with you. I just am trying to understand how you overcome all these obstacles to your belief system. You mentioned the elephant in the room–I see a whole stampede. If I seem repetetive in my posts it is only because some questions are seemingly ignored. You had to have known this post would be challenged, so I assumed you were up for it. If you do not wish to “reason together” just say the word. Respectfully, TST =)

The spirit of contention is of the Devil who seeks to have the children of God contend one against the other. No man can serve two masters. From the dialogue in this thread above, contention is the main ingredient.

I am really new to this debate on polygamy. Let me be honest here – I don’t want to believe in polygamy – so yeah I am kinda biased towards the arguments against it. Go ahead and accuse me of being caught up in the traditions of my fathers – I am. The fact that we use debate as a means to understand spiritual truths shows me we all still follow the traditions of our fathers.

I have done hardly any research on this subject. I just want to hear what you think about my reasoning.

As I see it, the main contention here is whether or not polygamy is essential for salvation. LDS Anarchy you said
“The only record we have of prophets of God telling people not to practice polygamy is from Jacob, and even he states that the word of the Lord was that “if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” In other words, the Lehites were to be monogamous unless the Lord re-authorized polygamy. ”

So are you agreeing then that polygamy is not essential to salvation? Because if it was, why would the Lord command a people not to participate? Were the people at Jacob’s time deprived of their salvation? And why didn’t the Lord clarify and say that polygamy is essential to salvation – instead he says he uses it to raise up seed, not to save people. So, does everyone here agree it is not essential to salvation? Am I missing something?

TruthSeekerToo, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me where in the scriptures it says that “all baptized people are seed of Abraham and heirs to the promise”? Just give me the scriptural references where it states this and I’ll look over them.

You have a very narrow definition of just what is the New and Everlasting Covenant. Baptism is part of the covenant. It is not the entire covenant.

Concerning D&C 58: 21, let me ask you a question. Was it legal in the 1830’s to marry a 14 year old? As far as I know, speaking of 2009, it is legal for Mexicans to get married when they are 14. And, here in America, while attending high school, a 16 year old friend of mine was legally married with the permission of her parents. (This was upsetting to me and all the other 16 year old guys in her class, as she was quite the looker and was now totally off-limits. But that’s besides the point.) Neither she nor the 14 year old Mexicans seem to be breaking the laws of their country. Are you familiar with the laws that were on the books of your own country back in 1831?

First, Is there any testimony that Joseph had sex with any of these wives? Did any of them ever admit to a sexually intimate relationship with him? I’m just wondering, because, I’ve never come across any such testimony. But maybe you have since you are going under the assumption that he had sex with them.

Second, what is wrong with having sex with your wife or your husband? Last I checked, sexual intimacy within the bounds of matrimony was approved by God. Yes, even if your wife is a 14 year old Mexican or a 16 year old American.

D&C 132 provides for polyandry, which is a step in the right direction for equality among the sexes, don’t you think? Joseph Smith, in this point alone, seems to have been way ahead of his time.

You mention taking someone’s spouse. I am not aware that Joseph Smith took anyone’s spouse away from them. Are you? All these women he married (the ones who were married to other men) stayed with their first husband, did they not? None of them left their husbands to be with Joseph and Emma, did they?

You can consult the web site The Wives of Joseph Smith if you are unsure of any of these facts. Also, according to that web site, Fanny married Joseph when she was 16, not 14.

You stated, “Polygamy is condemned in LDS scripture.” Could you please show me where polygamy is condemned in LDS scripture? I know of no scriptural reference whatsoever in any of the Standard Works that condemns polygamy. Do you?

Concerning cannibalism, I know of no scripture that condemns it, although there are a couple that state that the wicked will eat their own flesh and that the righteous will eat the flesh and blood of Christ (which you referenced.) In the first instance, wicked humans eating wicked humans, that’s the definition of cannabilism. In the second instance, righteous humans eating a non-human God, well, that’s not humans eating humans, is it? (Remember, Alma said that Jesus would not be a “human sacrifice.”) So, it can’t be cannibalism, according to the definition of cannibalism, can it?

So are you agreeing then that polygamy is not essential to salvation? Because if it was, why would the Lord command a people not to participate? Were the people at Jacob’s time deprived of their salvation? And why didn’t the Lord clarify and say that polygamy is essential to salvation – instead he says he uses it to raise up seed, not to save people. So, does everyone here agree it is not essential to salvation? Am I missing something?

Younger Dude, yes, you are missing something. TruthSeekerToo asked if polygamy was essential to exaltation. You are asking if polygamy is essential to salvation. The answer to your question is that polygamy is not essential to one’s salvation. But salvation is not necessarily the same as exaltation.

LDSA, you said that Joseph Smith married women that stayed with their first husbands. What would be the point of doing that, if he wasn’t to have sex with them to raise up a righteous seed? What’s the point to just marrying someone and keep them around?

If the Lehites were commanded to live monogamy only, then I’d agree that polygamy is not a saving ordinance. Which is great information as we’re all searching here for truth. We seem to all want to be disciples of our Savior, and looking for the correct and truthful information on how to achieve that goal. Is anyone on this blog practicing polygamy right now? I’m not, because I haven’t been given that direction.

I am reminded of many instances in the scriptures where the Lord’s decisions contradict his commandments. He tells Nephi to kill, and Abraham to kill and lie. I know that the killing of Issac wasn’t followed through, but he didn’t know it would turn out that way. So it is totally understandable in my eyes, that the previous OT, NT and early church practice of polygamy would confuse people. Things seem to contradict.

In the end, for me at least, reading all the opinions helps me to chart my own beliefs and I thank all who search for the true knowledge and share what they have found. For this specific topic, again I have not been asked to practice it. So for now, I can only hope to keep myself in the right mindset and spirit to accept the practice if it is asked of me. That’s all any of us can really do.

LDSA, you said that Joseph Smith married women that stayed with their first husbands. What would be the point of doing that, if he wasn’t to have sex with them to raise up a righteous seed? What’s the point to just marrying someone and keep them around?

JL, it was to create a real tribe of kinsmen and kinswomen, related to each other (linked to each other) through marriage covenants, and not just a group of unrelated church people.

“Younger Dude, yes, you are missing something. TruthSeekerToo asked if polygamy was essential to exaltation. You are asking if polygamy is essential to salvation. The answer to your question is that polygamy is not essential to one’s salvation. But salvation is not necessarily the same as exaltation.”

I actually need clarification on this. I was hoping to learn if you do believe it is required for exaltation. And when you speak of exaltation are you referring to the Celestial Kingdom or just a special portion of it?
Younger Dude, the LDS version of exaltation is what other Christians call salvation. It can get tricky to have discussions about this topic. IOW, all those who enherit a kingdom of glory are saved according to LDS doctrine. However, Christians define being saved as living with Heavenly Father, anything less than that doesn’t fit their definition of salvation.
This is why I am trying to learn exactly what LDSA believes polygamy is required for.

“Concerning cannibalism, I know of no scripture that condemns it, although there are a couple that state that the wicked will eat their own flesh and that the righteous will eat the flesh and blood of Christ (which you referenced.) In the first instance, wicked humans eating wicked humans, that’s the definition of cannabilism. In the second instance, righteous humans eating a non-human God, well, that’s not humans eating humans, is it? (Remember, Alma said that Jesus would not be a “human sacrifice.”) So, it can’t be cannibalism, according to the definition of cannibalism, can it?”

Do you believe in a literal eucharist?
When will we participate in this event?
Is it a doctrine of salvation or exaltation?
Does Christ still have blood?

Thanks, OWIW, I never check the spam filter. There it was (along with 4 other spam comments) and so I approved of it (or thought I did) and then I deleted the other spam. Unfortunately, it said 5 spam deleted, not 4. Sure enough, the comment is not here. Sorry about that, TruthSeekerToo. If you still have it, resubmit with the links. If it goes into spam, I’ll take it out.

“TruthSeekerToo, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me where in the scriptures it says that “all baptized people are seed of Abraham and heirs to the promise”? Just give me the scriptural references where it states this and I’ll look over them.”

Galatians 3:29 states that all believers are Abraham’s seed. Do you agree that all of his seed are also his heirs? All of his heirs are heirs to the promise.

“You have a very narrow definition of just what is the New and Everlasting Covenant. Baptism is part of the covenant. It is not the entire covenant.”

Can you show me where celestial marriage is referenced as part of the New and Everlasting Covenant outside of D&C 132?

“Are you familiar with the laws that were on the books of your own country back in 1831?”

I’m not going to waste my time looking. There were anti-bigamy laws, but I know that does not matter to you. There were also unlawful cohabitation laws. I read the argument that the law of the land doesn’t prevent religious marriages not recognized by the state. I guess they could “marry” anything they wanted. People will have to draw their own conclusions of whether this is being honest or not since it can be interpreted either way.

“First, Is there any testimony that Joseph had sex with any of these wives? Did any of them ever admit to a sexually intimate relationship with him? I’m just wondering, because, I’ve never come across any such testimony. But maybe you have since you are going under the assumption that he had sex with them.”

Yes, there is and I’m really surprised you didn’t know that. FARMS supports proof of relations with at least 9.

“You mention taking someone’s spouse. I am not aware that Joseph Smith took anyone’s spouse away from them. Are you? All these women he married (the ones who were married to other men) stayed with their first husband, did they not? None of them left their husbands to be with Joseph and Emma, did they?”

Well, when you send a husband on a bunch of missions it would seem to have the same effect. Would it not? I know you tend towards the belief that Brigham “watered down” the doctrine so I guess that is why he sent Henry away and took his wife. What is the point of the command not to covet your neighbors wife?

“Also, according to that web site, Fanny married Joseph when she was 16, not 14.”

Sorry, I wasn’t talking about her. I don’t count her as a plural wife. I’ve never seen any shred of evidence that a ceremony was performed. Speaking of her though, she was considered an adopted daughter and lived in the home. In the absence of a ceremony, I can only call it an affair.

“I know of no scriptural reference whatsoever in any of the Standard Works that condemns polygamy. Do you?”

Yes. I am pretty familiar with it. Perhaps you are too and just interpret it differently.

Jacob 2: 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and aabominations of their bhusbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done agreater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

I would like to point out verse 25 to everyone. In verse 25 the Lord says that he brought his people out of Jerusalem to RAISE UP A RIGHTEOUS BRANCH unto him. That is very significant, at least to me. If God wants to preserve his people and raise a righteous seed he does it by LEADING them out of the land of the wicked. Due to the wording and punctuation in verse 30 there is no proof that God is not talking about this method of preserving and raising a righteous people.
I think the strong language used against the polygamy practices of this people stands on its own.

Now, based on this chapter in the BoM I have to wonder why Joseph even had to ask again. It clearly states that polygamy/concubinage is an abomination. Did he think God was just teasing? I really, truly don’t understand.

Maybe, JUST maybe, he kept asking and asking until he got the answer he wanted. Kinda like with the lost pages of manuscript……..

TruthSeekerToo, I do not know your background, but I have been going under the assumption that you are a Latter-day Saint. The LDS definition of exaltation does not refer to salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. Angels are saved in the Celestial Kingdom, but they are not exalted. It may be that you are not LDS, hence the confusion. Only God and those who inherit his type of life are exalted. Also, the LDS version of exaltation is NOT what other Christians call salvation. No Christian believes that they will or can become just like God. To the Christians, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one and the same being, so whether they inherit the Celestial, Terrestial or Telestial kingdoms, they will be happy as one of the Godhead will minister to them. Now that you know how I view exaltation, re-read the Deep Waters post I linked to twice above, it may make more sense.

“TruthSeekerToo, perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me where in the scriptures it says that “all baptized people are seed of Abraham and heirs to the promise”? Just give me the scriptural references where it states this and I’ll look over them.”

And you replied,

Galatians 3:29 states that all believers are Abraham’s seed. Do you agree that all of his seed are also his heirs? All of his heirs are heirs to the promise.

This scripture does not tell me that all baptized people are seed of Abraham, in fact, it doesn’t mention baptism, at all. Here is a scripture for you to mull over:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8: 31-39)

Notice that these believers on Christ sought to kill him. Notice also that he called them Abraham’s seed. Notice also that he pointed out the works of Abraham and not the faith of Abraham that was the defining characteristic of Abraham’s seed. Now isn’t D&C 132 all about “the works of Abraham?”…

“I know of no scriptural reference whatsoever in any of the Standard Works that condemns polygamy. Do you?”

You said,

Yes. I am pretty familiar with it. Perhaps you are too and just interpret it differently.

Then you quoted Jacob 2: 23-35. Then you said,

I think the strong language used against the polygamy practices of this people stands on its own.

Now, based on this chapter in the BoM I have to wonder why Joseph even had to ask again. It clearly states that polygamy/concubinage is an abomination. Did he think God was just teasing? I really, truly don’t understand.

I’ll send you to Derek. Maybe he can help you to understand this scripture.

I am trying to ascertain your exact beliefs because they are not all mainstream. I thought it better to clarify than assume. I’m a lifelong member and have never heard that all husbands and wifes will share eachother in exaltation. I’m also trying to find out if you believe everything is both literal and symbolic or if you pick and choose. You can satisfy my curiousity by just saying yes or no.

John 8 is very good. It seems to be speaking very symbolically, however, since Jesus also tells them their father is the devil. I am unaware of any literal or spiritually born offspring of the devil–thought it was more of an adoption thing.

Have you read Galations 3 in its entirety? It talks about the law being a curse to bring us unto Christ so that he can free us from the bondage of sin (which comes through the law). Either way baptism–>put on Christ–>all are One/Christ’s–>seed of Abraham–>heir’s to the promise.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I’m not saying it is limited to this. I am saying God was not limited by literal thinking. Everyone can be the seed of Abraham regardless of blood or literal linage. He could fulfill this promise even if Abraham had one wife and one child.

TruthSeekerToo, you stated, “Yes, there is and I’m really surprised you didn’t know that. FARMS supports proof of relations with at least 9.” Please provide the reference. I’d like to look at the testimony of these wives. I would have thought that the Wives of Joseph Smith web site would have provided such testimony if it existed.

Here are a couple places to start, this isn’t where I originally came across the info but was easiest for me to find for you. You will have to track down original sources yourself. I am satisfied that he likely had relations with at least several of his wives. If he did not, that would just prove that Celestial Marriage is not about raising up seed or blood relations.
In absence of any testimony from Joseph himself, the testimony of the wives and close associates will have to do.

It is interesting that Joseph was also sealed to men. They were likely not consumated. So, in this light is it possible that sealing people together has nothing to do with polygamy, marriage or seed/blood relation?

“TruthSeekerToo, you said, “I’m also trying to find out if you believe everything is both literal and symbolic or if you pick and choose.” Everything is both literal and symbolic.”

Thank you!

I found this very interesting article by BRM about the exaltation of little children. In it he talks about salvation and exaltation being the same thing. Perhaps this is why even among LDS we have some confusion and disconnect over the topic.

“Joseph Smith said, “Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.” (Lectures on Faith, pp. 63–67.) We have come to speak of this salvation as exaltation—which it is—but all of the scriptures in all of the standard works call it salvation.”

Here are a couple places to start, this isn’t where I originally came across the info but was easiest for me to find for you. [These links aren’t from the FARMS web site. Please track down the original source and post it here.] You will have to track down original sources yourself. [No, I’m going to take the Mormon Heretic way and allow others to do the research for me and give me a summarized version and direct links to the original sources. I’m much too lazy to do it myself. Besides, as I stated in the second point I made, even if sexual relations did occur, what of it? Sexual relations within marriage is approved by God. So, this does not concern me, I am just curious whether there is testimony by the wives of sexual intimacy between Joseph and themselves, having never heard of such testimony before.] I am satisfied that he likely had relations with at least several of his wives. [Likely does not consist of testimony to a fact. Hearsay does not consist of testimony to a fact. That you are satisfied with your belief is fine, but a belief is just that, a belief, not a testimony. I asked for testimony from those who know best, any of the wives. That I know, none exists, however, you are free to infer whatever you want from what we know of those years and those people.] If he did not, [See, here you sound unsure of yourself. There can be no statements of “if he did not” if there is actual testimony from his wives that sexual intimacy took place between them and not just a “Celestial bond or sealing.” There needs to be facts and not just circumstantial evidence or hearsay. In matters of fornication and adultery, the gospel requires witnesses – see this and this - not any other type of evidence. However, as I’ve said before, all of this talk of sexual relations among married people is quite irrelevant.] that would just prove that Celestial Marriage is not about raising up seed or blood relations.

TruthSeekerToo, there are scriptures that, when they mention salvation, are saying that either you are saved in the kingdom of God (inner sphere of light) or you go to hell (outer darkness) and there are scriptures that speak of salvation as eternal life (exaltation in the Celestial kingdom). All of it is called salvation, but you gotta learn to distinguish which shade of meaning the scripture is intending to convey. It is unfortunate that in English, one word can have ten shades of meaning, or ten definitions, but se la vie. I realize that it is easier on the brain to just mash all the meanings together into one convenient, easy-to-swallow definition, but unfortunately, things aren’t that cut and dry. Deal with it. Saved does not mean just one thing every time it is mentioned in the scriptures.

You are saved whether you inherit the Telestial, Terrestrial or Celestial kingdoms. As you quoted Joseph, “Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.” The Telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory. There is authority and power and dominion there, as well as in the other kingdoms. Salvation applies to anything in the inner kingdom of light (the created Universe) from the lowest kingdom to the highest Exalted Being. These are all the degrees of salvation. Exaltation only deals with the highest degree of salvation. Paraphrasing Joseph’s words, “Exaltation consists in all the glory, all the authority, all the majesty, all the power and all the dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.”

Every principle of the revealed gospel is calculated to exalt man, including plural marriage. If you wish to be exalted (to become like God) you must be willing to do the works of Abraham and become his seed. And what did Abraham do? He received every principle of the gospel. You can discount the revelation in D&C 132, you can choose to disbelieve it, but plural marriage is Biblical, both Old and New Testaments and so by discounting it, your going to have to pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and provide the same polygamy filter on all the polygamous prophets. You mentioned the law (of Moses), which came through the polygamist, Moses. Will you discard the first 5 books of the Old Testament as invalid? Don’t you know that it was the polygamous Moses who first revealed “Thou shalt not commit adultery?” Taking a stance of wholesale rejection of the validity of plural marriage or polygamy puts the entire scriptural canon in jeopardy. You start to nit-pick at what you will and will not receive, based upon your preconceived notions and cultural conditioning. This is the opposite that Abraham did, who received all that the Lord revealed, no matter how difficult it was.

I guess I should be very grateful there are no daughters of perdition! =)

You have accused me of nit-picking which scriptures I will believe, however, you are doing the exact same thing. There is nothing wrong with that-we are supposed to choose. 2 Nephi teaches that there is opposition IN all things. I believe that includes the scriptures since they are part of ALL things. It is up to us, then, to test all revelations and doctrine.

Plural marriage being a valid form of human relations does not make it required for exaltation. I’ve said that over and over again, but I’m not sure you see the difference. The only thing that falls by saying polygamy is not required for exaltation is D&C 132. That revelation must be measured against the 4 standar works.

“JL said,

LDSA, you said that Joseph Smith married women that stayed with their first husbands. What would be the point of doing that, if he wasn’t to have sex with them to raise up a righteous seed? What’s the point to just marrying someone and keep them around?

JL, it was to create a real tribe of kinsmen and kinswomen, related to each other (linked to each other) through marriage covenants, and not just a group of unrelated church people.”

Why not sister/brother/adoption sealings if it wasn’t about sex or raising up a righteous seed? I don’t see my sealing to my children as any less binding than to my husband. The same can be said for my bind to my siblings and parents.
Don’t marriage covenants include “multiply and replenish the earth?” D&C 132 states that those who enter into this new and everlasting covenant but sin or transgress against it will be destroyed in the flesh and buffeted by Satan. It sounds like celestial marriages HAVE to be consummated.

I’m not inclined to do a research project for you to satisfy your curiosity. Thanks for the offer though. I’m goin’ out of town instead.

I’ve reread your article again and I couldn’t find where you addressed the issue of there being no more “ites” in a Zion population and how that squares with the tribe theory. Was that in a different article?

Your article states that polygamy activates the tribal functions of all the tribes. Is it merely the marital polygamous sealings that activate the tribe or the consummation of those marriages? Do monogamous tribes not really function as real tribes? I guess I’m not sure what you mean by “function.” Is that the same as “kinship?”

TruthSeekerToo, I was stating a generality that if we use cultural filters and preconceived notions, we start to selectively filter out revelations from God that don’t fit our world-view. Everyone does this to a greater or lesser degree. The Christians do this and stop at the Bible, rejecting the BoM, the PoGP and the D&C. Others, accept the Bible and Book of Mormon and not much else. Others accept all the revelations except D&C 132. Others accept everything. If you find D&C 132 in conflict with everything that came before, that is your right and privilege to reject it as revelation. I, though, see no conflict whatsoever.

It may be that I have a background that allows me to accept D&C 132 more easily than you. I am a convert to the church so I had to make the jump from Bible-only to Bible plus other books. Not everyone can take that leap. It requires a certain mindset to allow for possibilities outside of the cultural conditioning you are brought up in. In my case, the cultural conditioning was Bible-only. So, I started out in a limited fashion and had to re-condition myself to accept a wider view. In your case, you being a life-long member, you started out in the wider view and are now re-conditioning yourself to accept a more limited or narrower view. We are approaching the issue from different ends of the spectrum.

You stated, “Why not sister/brother/adoption sealings if it wasn’t about sex or raising up a righteous seed? I don’t see my sealing to my children as any less binding than to my husband. The same can be said for my bind to my siblings and parents.”

The marriage sealing is a covenant entered into by the two parties and God. Children do not enter into any covenants when they are sealed to their parents. Yahweh Elohim is all about covenants. Gods make covenants. Everything is done by covenant, whether baptism or the United Order. As above, so below. This is the principle and this is why D&C 132 was revealed. It contains the covenant law of marriage that was revealed to Abraham plus some of the other aspects that, perhaps, Abraham was not told or, at least, was told not to reveal, as this dispensation was to gather all things in one, both in heaven and on earth, so Joseph’s mission wasn’t just to restore what was given to Abraham and the others of other dispensations, but also to bring down from heaven all the laws that never were before revealed in previous dispensations. D&C 132, then, is only a part of it. More will be coming. But the principle is to bind the people together as a related tribe in covenantal bonds.

You said, “Don’t marriage covenants include “multiply and replenish the earth?” D&C 132 states that those who enter into this new and everlasting covenant but sin or transgress against it will be destroyed in the flesh and buffeted by Satan. It sounds like celestial marriages HAVE to be consummated.”

I never said that they weren’t consummated. I only said I know of no wives’ testimony to that end. And I also said it doesn’t matter that they were consummated, as there is no sin in making love to your wife or husband. However, a marriage isn’t a marriage unless it is consummated. So, all of the marriage sealings that took place, for them to be valid in the eternities, must eventually be consummated. That is my understanding. One flesh pretty much sums up marriage.

You said, “I’ve reread your article again and I couldn’t find where you addressed the issue of there being no more “ites” in a Zion population and how that squares with the tribe theory. Was that in a different article?”

In the post above, I wrote:

Be that as it may, we must always remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to be lived by genuine tribes (composed of kin) and not just tribes in name only. (See The tribal nature of the gospel.) This means that there will be a tribal movement among the saints at some time in the future, which will activate the tribal functions. This also means that D&C 132, which is a tribal key, will likely at some point be lived again in its fulness.

The link addresses that issue.

You stated, “Your article states that polygamy activates the tribal functions of all the tribes. Is it merely the marital polygamous sealings that activate the tribe or the consummation of those marriages? Do monogamous tribes not really function as real tribes? I guess I’m not sure what you mean by “function.” Is that the same as “kinship?””

No, kinship is not the same as function. However, kinship must be there in order for a tribe to function as a tribe. Currently we Americans live in a State and States generally have the goal of breaking up the natural tribes of men, as tribes interfere with the functions of the State. So, most Americans have no concept of what it means to be in a tribe. However, there are some Americans who still have maintained tribal allegiances, despite the attempt by the State to break them up. For example, the Italian Mafia. The Italian Mafia by and large is a related group of people, made up of related families and clans. They are, for all intents and purposes, a tribe. Their tribe has its own tribal laws, tribal courts, tribal customs, etc. They are a society within a society. A tribe living within a State. Their allegiance is sworn FIRST to their tribe and second to their country. Tribe always comes first. If the government collapses, the Mafia, which already has a set of tribal laws and customs in place, would retain some order and stability among their people.

Now, obviously, this is not an example of a “nice” tribe, but it is one that I think Americans can get their mind around. The Mafia breaks the laws of the State, doing things the State says only the State can do, like extorting money, etc., but to the Mafia, the real infraction is breaking the laws of the Mafia. In other words, tribal laws take precedence over everything else.

Yahweh has organized his people into named tribes, but they are currently (here in America) living within a State. Also, the people are unrelated to each other. Kin is very important to the impact of a tribal allegiance. It is one thing to be ostracized by a group of unrelated people, it is quite another to be ostracized by your family. So, tribal allegiance remains strong only as long as kinship remains strong. Now, the people of the Lord don’t function as tribes, but as citizens of a State. This must and will change. The people must be linked to each other, by covenantal bonds, forming tribal relationships. Then and only then, can they bear the tribal functions of a peaceful and ordered society.

Currently, the body of the church is organized into the nuclear family, which is generally isolated from the extended family. In other words, nuclear families generally set out on their own. They don’t gravitate to other related nuclear families to form a clan, and multiple related clans don’t generally gravitate to each other to form a tribe. Generally, this doesn’t happen in America. In fact, the emphasis now is on families, not on tribes or clans. But that emphasis will change in the future, and it will return to what it has always been, the tribes.

But because kinship is so necessary to tribal formation, and because the tribe of Ephraim (for example) consists of unrelated, baptized, Gentile nuclear families and individuals from all parts of the world, the Lord will need to cause these people to become related to each other, in order for them to start acting like a tribe. The doctrine of plural marriage is what will accomplish this.

LDS Anarchist: Gentile families are not unrelated. We’re a bunch of inbred hicks, all of us.

TruthSeekerToo: To be exalted is to receive the highest degree of glory. To reject the higher principles of God is damnation (as with rivers, to damn something is to halt its progression; as men & women, we primarily damn ourselves by rejecting truth & possibility). I’m not meaning to imply that you’ve committed adultery in your heart or in the flesh, but adultery is forgiven by marriage, and sex is the physical ordinance that consecrates an eternal covenant of marriage — many people who expect otherwise will accept plural marriage & exaltation, especially once they possess perfect knowledge in absence of the veil. Either you need plural marriages by lust or you already have them by sex. Take your pick.

Well, I disagree with your assessment of 4 Nephi and your concept of “all things in common.” I do not believe that the parables of Christ will come to pass in a literal sense (ie 10 virgins are literally going to stand outside their ancient traditional Jewish wedding with ancient oil lamps and half go in to marry Christ). He spoke in parables so that the true symbolic meaning would be obscured from the spiritually blind and deaf.

Accepting your belief system requires interpreting all scriptures exactly as you do and also believing all your assumptions that are not based in scripture.
Everyone will have to take the Spirit as their guide and seek after truth for themselves.

“Either you need plural marriages by lust or you already have them by sex. Take your pick.”

Derek, I have no idea what you are talking about??? How bout people control themselves and not be lustful or go outside their monogamous marriage?

Who said the parable of the ten virgens would come to pass in a literal sense?

“Accepting your belief system requires interpreting all scriptures exactly as you do and also believing all your assumptions that are not based in scripture.” That’s pretty funny. The same could be said about everyone, including you. I assume that Biblical polygamy is scriptural, the Bible being scripture, and so can accept a doctrine of polygamy as coming from God, while you reject portions of the Bible as being scriptural, the portions that support polygamy, and thus refuse to accept an inspired doctrine of polygamy. So, as I am basing my assumptions on portions of the Bible which you reject, my assumptions are not based in scripture. LOL That’s classic!

I’m reading an article on plural marriage (written by an author I’ve invited to contribute to this blog; we’ll see if he accepts the invitation) and I just came across this Journal of Discourse quote by Brigham Young which I found interesting and thought I’d share it here:

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbours, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. (Journal of Discourses 9:322, bold added)

An interesting theory on the purpose of polygamy, though I don’t know that I feel I completely understand the subject. I do believe in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, but I don’t claim to understand it fully.

Looking at this quote, perhaps another purpose of polygamy was to undermine our dependence on Rome/Babylon. It seems to have backfired, but it’s a thought I had.

I would like to clarify “tribalism” as a covenant relationship with the Lord. Those who make and keep their covenants with the Lord are part of his family; those who do not, are not.

As far as common consent is concerned, we have two choices (1) agree with God or (2) disagree. Those who disagree will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Cultural and social mores of human societies are of no real value unless they correspond directly to those in heaven. Marriages formed between men and women are valid ONLY when they abide in the eternal covenant of an eternal God.

**Note to Todd: Plural marriages are justifiable before God. They do, however, have to be marriages between male and female. There is no justification at all for the view that consenting adults can do as they please. Only God’s law is valid in the eternities, and he’s condemned all homosexual practices as abomination. Check your scriptures.

Monogamy puts the women in a position where rather than competeing for her husband there is a tendency for her to compete against her husband. She almost always will take the opposit position to show her husband that there is another side to the issue as if he never did think of it. Of course she thinks she is doing him a service. And todays society is very corrosive to the marriage covenant, many women today relate to much with the soapys, cosmoppolitan, movie stars and the rich rich and wonder why their husbands can’t provide to that same level. And to many husbands have given up and given in they have lost much of their creation abilities. The free white male is the most targeted human being by a godless society, if you watch the tube you will notice he almost always plays the part of the evil, stupid, villan. The government, church and society at large has casterated the white male. As Joseph Smith said polgamy was designed to exalt man kind, men had to be spiritual giants to make polgamy work and women had to compete for their husbands, uplifting him with encouragement, affection, and understanding.

I just stumbled upon a book entitled Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy. I have been reading it and it makes a very solid case stating Joseph Smith never practicing polygamy and actively fought it in the church. Most of the book seems available online but I ordered a hard copy so I could read it more thoroughly. The couple who wrote it have meticulously researched and documented their research over almost half a century, culminating in this book. It is something I never considered, having accepted the fact since I was a child that Joseph was a polygamist, I thought everyone accepted it as fact, I was not aware of the other side of the debate…

I would like to add that the polygamy years of the church — 1831 to 1910 — are hard to nail down with documentary evidence.

You may be familiar with the work of Daymon Smith on the subject of correlation — he writes about the secret-speak and backwards-talking that was done by the Mormon Underground in order to keep this practice “sacred” — or secret depending on how you look at it. “Lying for the Lord”, as the saying goes.

I’m not saying I think the book is wrong — however having record that Joseph Smith taught publically against polygamy is not sufficient to prove he never lived the practice himself.

Also, I do agree that Joseph — given that he practiced polygamy — would have spoken against the strict polyandry that the Utah leaders established in the 1850s. As LDSA explains in this post, Joseph had a grander, more egalitarian vision of plural marriage — more akin to John Humphrey Noyes’ complex marriage than to what Brigham practiced.

For those interested in the research contained in “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” which was just mentioned by PallasAthena, there is a very interesting post that addresses it in detail, it is found on “Pure Mormonism” at this location

Although I am not convinced that JS did not participating in polygamy, I think the book mentioned above provides compelling information that should be reviewed by anyone sincerely wanting to review all sides of the issue.

Rest assured that 45 years of research boiled down into a 260 page book discusses a bit more than just a few public speeches against polygamy.

Like I said, I was previously not aware there was a debate, this book just introduced me to the other side. I am very slow to discount something just because I have lived my life thinking something different.

“And if you believe that God would allow the church to go so far a field that from over 160 years He allows an abomination to take place in the temple and not stop it … you don’t believe in the same being I do”

You are correct. You and I apparently do not worship the same God.

There have been multiple times in religious history when the God that I worship has turned his face away from his rebellious people for a season and allowed them to “go so far a field”.

Just open up the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the D&C.

I don’t judge the intent of your heart, only God can do that.

Regardless of what the real intent of your heart is, outwardly I must say that you seem like a pretty damn charitable guy to me.

Nor do I necessarily believe that partriarchal marriage is wrong for you to practice or for others who feel compelled to live that law.

But you really need to be careful about preaching eternal principals that you are ignorant about.. you might just be held accountable for what your are teaching.

I have an open invitation to all LDS fundamentalists to prove the soundness and accuracy of the spiritual wife doctrine.

You are welcome to join me in a little discusson of this most important issue that you are so passionate about.

Lets see if your knowledge of church history and of the word of God is matched by your passionate feelings on the issue.

Thank you OWIW for the invite. I will probably read some. But I don’t think I can match wits with you. So I might not engage much.
But thank you more for something else. And please for give me for something.
Your small compliment opened my eyes to the reality of a negative feeling I have had for you. That one comment I made to you some month or more ago had some venom in it. In fact I decided to rewrite it when it didn’t go through at first and I was glad to be less caustic. but then I found it had gone through and I could not change the comment. So I am sorry for the mean tone I had. And you apparently have perceived correctly that I really do have charity, for you. When I wrote “I want to see you there.” speaking of the Celestial Kingdom I was directing that at you. And it is true. Brother I love you, I want to be there with you with our Father. And I think we will be there. And I really don’t care if I am the one who will need to revise my thinking.
Thank you for speaking kind even when I spoke harshly. Please forgive me.
I do believe what I wrote. But I am very willing to be a fool for the sake of living in love with all my brothers and sisters with our Father.
And yes you are right about the Lord allowing His children to go far afield. I really thought about not putting that aas part of the comment. It truly is a weak idea. But I do also feel light and knowledge from the 132 sec. So we will see. I am sure God is charitable, more than I am. I believe He is very patient with those who lack knowledge since He knows so well the darkness that is covers our world. But When I feel the love He has and that I feel for others (when I am not being prideful) I know all will be well in the end for those who love and forgive. So I will see you there brother. Surely I will see you there.

Hey OWIW how can I read your blog? I tried the links but it says it is private. Didi something happen? I know it has been a long time since I said I would read but There has been a lot on my plate to learn and deal with. All I can do now is hope you catch this and open a window for me to read what you have to say. I reread your post on transfiguring the word of God. Now after much more study I have no resistance to what you wrote there.
I hope this reaches you and finds you well and a way for me to visit your blog. I will go search the web and probably find your new blog location before you even see this.
Good Sabbath brother. Okay its really Sunday but you get what I mean.
I send my love as your brother in Christ.

Hopefully I won’t get censored here as I did on “One Who is Watching”blog. for speaking on polygamy, I will make some of the same points and let all of you decide. I am not a polygamous and can’t say I am trying to become one in fact I am just the opposite, not even married, old and tired looking forward to the end of things. Up front I will also say that I am the one “mighty and strong” spoken of in the scrip. and I know that will get your attention tho that to me is not such a big deal and yet it is. I am not looking for anything from any one just to establish the truth, end of story. The fact is that polgamy is found through out the old testament and as such it is part of the economy of God for the salvation and exaltation of man. In the dispensation of the fulness of times all things would be gathered together in one, we live in that dispensation, how hard is that to understand? If that principle had not been restored to the earth in this dispensation I would have been surprised or even shocked. The whoredoms spoken of in Jacob was due to the fact that King David and Solomon did not seal men into their families or tribe if you will, those women had no loveing husbands to cling to. They were given by the prophet Nathan and such had no where to turn. David or any man for that matter could not emotionally or physically take care of that many women. It has been estimated that David had some 300 wives and Solomon something like a 1000 .They tried to find fulfillment any way they could, hence whoredoms. They ventured outside of their marriage covenant out of desperation for love. Monogamy in the eternal worlds is a form of damnation for they are restricted to the one intelligence or mate, there is an infinite number of possible relationships in heaven with the oppurtunity to grow from each one, After a few trillion years, a wild estimation, probably alot less time than that, monogamous couples would find nothing new in each other. Well I hope I stirred up a hornets nest and got you thinking, I plan on returning to this site and answering questions, debateing, and revealing much. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely Brand Nu

There is a balance in polygamy/polyandry that wisdom can find. Children don’t mind haveing a bunch of brothers, sisters,aunts, uncles etc. Adults must deal with issues of pride and insecurites that try the best of us, not to mention drawing the line between the lust of the flesh and the spirit which I think can only be determined by experience. Every one knows when they are loseing the spirit. There is a natural love that God cultivates in his people that recognizes the differences of what is healthy and that which is unhealthy. One of the greatest gifts/miracles is the dna of man and keeping it healthy and protected is a real responsibility to future generations. There is a assault on the worlds dna by the Lucifarians/ Illuminati, Joseph protected his lineage and dna the best he could at the time. He spread his seed around so that the enemy in the chambers could not find it. However the enemy has beentracking down certain lineages and eliminating them. That is what got David Koresh and his followers destroyed to practically the last child, this is why The fundamentalist in Texas have had their genome mapped and so on and so on.David Koresh also made the mistake of claiming to be Davidic King, the House of Windsor is very aware that they are pretenders to the throne. And they the know that the heir of the throne is on the earth even now.The Mormon church has been assisting in this research weather they know it or not. They are also looking for the seed of the watchers to replenish their failng dna. Their dna is very unusual in that it is much easier to be demon posesed. They through things such as chemtrails, fluridated water. chemicals in the soil, food additives, innoculations, and now world wide radiation poisoning have been actively destroying the dna of man. The smaller the dna pool the likelihood of damaged dna increases which results in birth defects, lower iq’s personality dis orders, still births etc. The good news is there is about to be a dna upgrade for the righteous, The quantum wave from the galactic center coupled with the photon belt the solar flares and Christ’s dna (blood) in the earth are prepareing the righteous for their ascension. So it is not all bad news. These are just a few things that need to be consisdered when makeing decisions of polgamy/polyandry.

Thank you WoA11,2011 for the comlpliment, every venture I take starts with faith and I am definitely out there. I am only afraid to be content, I have found that given enough time I am rarely wrong. If someone comes along and he gives me more of the words of life I consider him my friend. I try to explain that which is pertinant for the time. I cannot tell you the depth of frustration I feel for the saints. Anyhow there is so much happening right now in terms of prphecies being fulfilled. My greatest passion at this time is to raise the conciousness of the saints to realize their individual potentials, and to think for themselve rather being lead by the corrupt leadership of the LDS church. The days of our probation have already begun to end, the days are being shortened otherwise no flesh would be saved, it is a quickening only when we resonate at these higher frequencies. If we don’t there shall be a scab and a balding rather than a well set hair and a stink rather than a sweet smell and a burning instead of beauty. I tis becomeing increasingly uncomfortable being a law unto ones self.Carnel security is the greatest danger, the saints need to turn the battle to the gate, and demand accountabiltiy from those that should be saviors on mount Zion. We have been commanded to forsake all evil and yet the church excommunicates those that donot pay taxs to the federal reserve Illuminati, the Luceferians. Our tax dollars are used to pay for abortions, illegal wars that kill tens of thousands, the worlds propaganda machine that spews out lies to keep men in fear and darkness. It is time to render unto God those things that are Gods such as righteousness and all things pertaining to righteousness and tell Ceaser to go to hell. Thank you for your attention and God bless.

You said many prophecies are being fulfilled. Where are we at in things being fulfilled. I do recognize that prophecies in the scriptures may not necessarily be in cronological order. And what is on the horizon?

The state of Utah just passed a bill to mint their own coins/tender this is in preperation for the relief mine that as bro. Brigham said that gold would be the means of destroying the world bankers. Bishop Quoyle said that three things happened so close together that he could not tell in which order that they happened. The collapse of the economy and government the comeing in of the relief mine and the setting in order of the church. The comeing in of the relief mine in itself would set the church in order due to the fact the fought it so ruthlessly. The relief mine is only a few feet shy of the gold which he described as more like rock in the gold than gold in the rock. He said that a earth quake would drain the water away and the gold would be accesible. Has any one noticed the many small earth quakes in and arond the Wassatch front? Any how this is just few prophecies that are in the process of comeing to pass there are others that to me are much more interesting that I will elaborate on this week end when I have more time. Thank you Brand Nu

For those of us attempting to understand the revelation many decades into the future, it is easy to get caught up in the belief that polygamy was about established men gathering up their pick of the available teenage girls. But if we look at the early explanations from Joseph and Hyrum and Brigham, we see that it was explained as part of a complete marriage system that allowed all members of a family to be joined together, and to establish links not only between spouses, but to their future, as in the case of Henry Harriman.

The above essay is part of a larger series. You can read or listen to all of this ongoing series as each part is completed by clicking here.